Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Summary
Given pressure, temperature, and composition of a fluid, one desires to determine whether the single phase state is stable. This
problem is, in principle, much simpler than phase-behavior calculations. For certain applications, such as compositional-reservoir
modeling, stability testing can be the most important item for
efficient phase-behavior calculations.
In this paper, we use the tangent-plane-distance (TPD) in the
reduced space to perform stability analysis testing. The results
reveal that there are major advantages in the reduced space. One
interesting feature of the transformation is that the TPD surface
becomes smooth and has one minimum. The combination of a
single minimum and the surface smoothness contributes to a remarkable robustness in calculations.
Introduction
Phase-behavior computations are an important element of thermodynamics of phase equilibria in general, and of compositional
modeling of hydrocarbon reservoirs and production facilities in
particular. Compositional modeling in hydrocarbon reservoirs demands robustness for hundreds of millions of phase partitioning
computations with varying conditions of pressure and composition, including in the critical region.
There are five basic requirements and desirable features for
phase behavior-related computations in a compositional-reservoir
simulator. Given the temperature, T, the pressure, p, and the overall composition vector, z(z1,z2, . . . , zc,) one desires to:
1. Determine the phase stability.
2. Recognize the state of the phase (that is, gas or liquid).
3. Perform flash computations.
4. Calculate phase derivatives with respect to p and zi.
5. Use an adequate number of components/pseudocomponents
for certain accuracy.
Item 1 above determines the need for flash computations. When
it is determined that the fluid system is in single state from stability
testing, there will be no need for flash computations; flash computations are more costly and complicated than stability testing
when one takes advantage of proper stability analysis testing. The
TPD from stability can also be used to perform flash computations
efficiently, as will be discussed in the second part of this work.
In compositional-reservoir simulators, it is necessary to recognize the phase state; one needs to know whether the single phase
is a gas or a liquid phase. In Item 4 above, the total derivatives for
the flow expressions are estimated. These derivatives are (L/
P)z,T , (L/ni)T,P,ni , and other similar derivatives; Lthe liquid
phase density, nithe number of moles of component i in the feed,
ni=(ni , . . . , ni1,ni+1, . . . , nc), and cthe number of components.
Depending on the process, sufficient accuracy may require the use
of from 4 to 12 (or more) components. When the nonlinear equations in flash are performed using the Newton algorithm, the computational time is proportional to c3. Therefore, there will be an
78
a=
i=1 j=1
xi xj ai1 2aj1 2 =
xi ai1 2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)
i=1
include one set of binary interaction coefficients between one component and the rest. As a result of this extension, the dependent
variables were reduced to five regardless of the number of components. One of the five variables was the mole fraction of the
component, for which its interaction coefficient with the other
components is nonzero. In 1988, Hendricks10 presented a general
approach and demonstrated that the number of variables in the
fugacity coefficient can be reduced to a value less than the number
of components. He used the expression for the excess Gibbs free
energy and its transformation to formulate chemical potentials in
terms of transformed variables. All the interaction coefficients were
included in the work of Hendricks. Later, Hendricks and van Bergen11 applied the procedure outlined by Hendricks10 to perform flash
computations for two multicomponent mixtures. The simple Newton-Raphson algorithm was used to solve the nonlinear equations.
In a different approach, Kaul and Thrasher12 introduced a twostage minimization of the Gibbs free energy. In the first stage, the
ideal part of the Gibbs free energy is minimized, and in the second
stage, the excess part is minimized; the ideal part is a function of
composition, and the excess part is a function of EOS parameters.
In this approach, the number of dependent variables reduces to
three when the interaction coefficients are set to zero and to four
with nonzero interaction coefficients. Test results show that the
method is efficient with zero interaction coefficients, but inefficient with nonzero interaction coefficients.
In all the above work, the emphasis is mainly on two-phase
flash. Stability testing in the reduced space and its features have
not yet been exploited.
Theory of Reduction Method
The expression for the energy parameter a of the PR-EOS and
other similar equations is given by
c
a=
x x a
12 12
i j i aj 1
ij. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2)
i=1 j=1
D=
1
2 0
.
0 ..
c
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4)
q q . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7)
k ki kj
k=1
k=1
k=1
xi qki
i=1
x q . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (10)
j kj
j=1
Let us define Qk as
c
Qk =
xq ,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (11)
i ki
i=1
then
c
a=
Q,
2
k
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (12)
k=1
and, therefore,
a = aQ1, . . . , Qc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (13)
The compressibility factor Z and the fugacity coefficient i are
given by (see Appendix A)
Z = ZQ1, . . . , Qc,b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (14)
i=1
12
kj .
j xj q
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8)
j=1
Let
qki = ai1 2qki . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (9)
March 2002 SPE Journal
y y z.
TPDy =
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (18)
D=
y ln y ln z + y ln y ln z . . . . . . . . (19)
i
i=1
i=1
a=
a=
ij = 1 ij =
Then,
i=1
Even with one minimum, the shape of the TPD will influence the
search for the minimum, and the procedure may be sensitive to the
intial guess.
Let us now proceed with the calculation of D with the reduction
variables followed by its minimization. In order to facilitate the
derivations, we will examine the stability of the fluid mixture in
the liquid state. (The derivations for the stability of the gas state are
straightforward and follow the derivations for the stability of the
liquid phase.) Eq. 19 can be rewritten for this purpose as
c
D=
y ln
i
iV
iL
ln
i=1
y ln y ln z . . . . . . . . . . . . (20)
i
qiyi = QV
= 1, . . . , m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (21)
i=1
c
yibi = bV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (22)
i=1
c
y = 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (23)
i
i=1
yi.
i=1
V
M
V
m+1
Let us assign Q
= Q =b , and qm+1,i=bi (see Eq. B-5) (that
is, M=m+1).
Then, Eq. 20 can be written as
c
y ln
i
iVQV1 ,
c1
y ln y ln z +
i
QVM
...,
i=1
i=1
y ln
i
i=1
c1
i=1
iLQV1 ,
...,
c1
ln 1
i=1
QVM
ln zc .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (24)
q y +q
i i
i=1
c1
=D
i=1
qV
c1
= 1, . . . , M. . . . . . (25)
i i
i=1
c1
i=1
QV , . . . . . (26)
ln Kj = ln
ql
zl exp
=1
l=1
=1
j = 1, . . . , c. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (27)
The derivative of (from Eq. 26) with respect to provides
c1
QV =
qiyi + qc 1
i=1
c1
i=1
= 1, . . . , M. . . . . . (28)
D II
QV
yj
QV
=1
D II
QV
qi qc. . . . . . (31)
D II
= 1, . . . , M. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (32)
DV
QV
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (38)
q y +q
=1
=1
HII =
Eqs. C-1, 30, and 31 provide the expression for the Lagrange multipliers
j = 1, . . . , c 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (30)
c1
D=
D II
= ln Kj ln Kc
yj
i=1
Let us denote the first two terms in Eq. 24 by DI, and the
remaining terms by DII. Taking the derivative of DII with respect
to yj results in
H II QV. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (39)
Combining Eqs. 37 and 39 provides the iterative expression for
the minimization of the TPD,
I + HIHII1 = D QV. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (40)
The elements of HI, [HII]I, and the gradient vector D/QV are
provided in Appendix D.
The computational procedure for the calculation of the minimum of the TPD is provided in the following six steps.
1. All the eigenvalues and the coreesponding eigenvectors of
the matrix with the entries (1ij) are first calculated. The nonzero eigenvalues are selected and are arranged in the order of the
absolute values.
2. The initial equilibrium ratios (that is, Ki) are estimated using
the Wilson correlation13 (one may use other correlations).
3. The Lagrange multipliers (1, . . . , M) are obtained
from Eq. C-1 from the data in Steps 1 and 2 using the linear-least
squares for the first iteration.
4. The equilibrium ratios Ki are obtained from Eq. 27 in subsequent iterations.
5. Then y are calculated from yi=Kizi, and QV(=1.,M) are
c
j = 1, . . . , c 1; = 1, . . . , M. . . . . . . (29)
calculated from QV =
jyj.
j=1
6. The convergence of the Lagrange multipliers is examined. If convergence criterion of, say, <106 is not met, Eq. 40
is used to update , and one goes back to Step 4.
The eigenvalues and the eigenvectors in Step 1 are calculated
by transforming the symmetric matrix into a tridiagonal matrix,
and then computing the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the tridiagonal matrix. The Gaussian elimination is used without the pivot
computation to solve the linear equations in Step 6. To our surprise, as will see next and in the results section, the simple Newton
algorithm in conjunction with the above procedure with the reduction variables is extremely robust. Next we will examine the shape
of the TPD surface.
TPD Surface. The shape and smoothness of the TPD surface affects considerably the number of iterations and the robustness of
an iterative process for locating the minimum (minima). In the
course of this work, we were pleasantly surprised that the calculation of the minimum of the TPD with the reduction variables is
a simple task. This experience is completely different from the
work of others who have found the calculation of the minima of
TPD with conventional variables (that is, mole fractions) to be
complicated. Perhaps the best way to appreciate the merit of our
approach for stability testing is the visual examination of the TPD
surface with the reduction and the conventional variables. This can
be done in a 3D space for ternary mixtures only; in a threecomponent mixture, one can examine the plot of TPD vs. mole
fraction of components 1 and 2 in the trial phase. The plot of the
TPD vs. a1/2 and b of the trial phase (which are the reduction variables
when ij0) also provides the desired surface for examination.
Fig. 1 shows the TPD vs. mole fractions of the trial gas phase
for the ternary mixture C1/nC10/CO2 with composition zC10.40,
znC100.30, and zCO20.30 at 350 K and 50 bar. The stability of
the phase as liquid is desired to be tested. Both the left and the right
figures show the same plot; the only difference is the rotation
along the TPD axis. Note that there is a global minimum at around
0.66. Due to the shape of the TPD surface, it may not be easy to
locate the minimum if the initial guess is not properly estimated.
The negative sign of the minimum implies that the assumed phase
is not a stable liquid phase. Fig. 2 shows the TPD vs. the reduction
variables of the trial gas phase. The minimum is the same as
before, but the shape of the TPD surface is very different. This
time, there is clearly one minimum, and it will be straightforward
to calculate it. Note that the figures on the right and the left are the
same. One is shaded representation, and the other is meshed rep-
Fig. 1Dimensionless TPD vs. xC1 and xnC10 for the C1/nC10/CO2 system at 350 K and 50 bar: zC1=0.40, znC10=0.30, and zCO2=0.30.
March 2002 SPE Journal
81
Fig. 2Dimensionless TPD vs. a1/2 and b for the C1/nC10/CO2 system at 350 K and 50 bar: zC1=0.40, znC10=0.30, and zCO2=0.30.
ponents/pseudocomponents. The interaction coefficients are obtained from Katz and Firoozabadi18 and by matching the saturation
pressure to estimate the interaction coefficient between C1 and the
residue. Table 5 lists the nonzero eigenvalues from the matrix for
all the mixtures. We use stability analysis to calculate the saturation
pressure by decreasing the pressure with an increment of 0.1 bar at
Fig. 3Dimensionless TPD vs. the reduction and conventional variables for the C1/nC5/nC10 system at 300 K and 100 bar: zC1=0.80,
znC5=0.10, and znC10=0.10.
82
Fig. 4Dimensionless TPD vs. the reduction and conventional variables for the C1/nC5/nC10 system at 300 K and 100 bar: zC1=0.10,
znC5=0.40, and znC10=0.50.
constant temperature until the mixture changes its state from singlephase to two-phase. The results are presented in the following.
Synthetic Oil (Mixture I). First, the conventional method is used
to calculate the saturation pressure with ten components. Then, the
stability testing from the reduction method is employed. There are
three nonzero eigenvalues (see Table 5); m3, m2, and m1
represent the number of eigenvalues in the descending order; m
3 represents the use of all three eigenvalues; and for m1, the
largest eigenvalue is used in stability calculations. The stability
testing with zero interaction coefficients is also performed with
and without the adjustment of the critical temperature of nC10. The
measured bubblepoint pressure at 322 K is used to adjust the
critical temperature of nC10.
The saturation pressures are plotted in Fig. 6. The results for
m3 are identical to those of the conventional method (not shown
in the figure). The figure shows that for m2, with three variables,
the stability testing provides a very good approximation for the
entire range; m1, which has two variables in stability testing,
does not give reasonable prediction at temperatures below 540 K.
For 0, the deviations at low temperatures are greater than for
m1 in view of the fact that both methods have two variables. The
adjustment of Tc for nC10 to match the bubblepoint pressure at 322
K increases the value of Tc from 617.9 to 745 K. The approach
produces the worst results (see Fig. 6).
Table 6 provides the number of iterations at different saturation
pressures. The convergence criterion of 11.06 was used in the
calculations (see Step 6 of the computation procedure). The results
show that the number of iterations depends mainly on the distance
from the critical point (CP). The closer to the CP, the greater the
number of iterations. The number of iterations is two times higher
in the critical region than outside the region.
Fig. 5Dimensionless TPD vs. the reduction and conventional variables for the C1/nC5/nC10 system at 300 K and 100 bar: zC1=0.998,
znC5=0.00012, and znC10=0.0008.
March 2002 SPE Journal
83
Name
Mixture I
Mixture
Synthetic Oil
Mixture II
Mixture III
Mixture IV
Tc (K)
Pc (bar)
C1Ci
Comp.
mol (%)
C1
81.107
16.04
190.6
45.4
0.008
C2
3.914
30.07
305.4
48.2
0.098
C3
1.958
44.1
369.8
41.9
0.152
C4
1.628
58.12
419.6
37.0
0.187
C5
1.105
72.15
448.8
33.3
0.243
C6
1.197
84
506.35
33.9
0.299
0.01
C7 -C9
2.73
107
554.13
29.7
0.428
0.01
C10 -C12
2.2973
147
622.3
24.5
0.611
0.02
C13 -C15
1.2491
190
679.0
20.3
0.776
0.02
C16 -C18
0.8473
237
727.0
16.8
0.940
0.02
C19+
1.9673
385.08
809.0
10.0
1.668
84
Comp.
mol %
CO 2 -C i
C1 -C i
CO2
C1
35
0.093
C2
0.128
C3
0.123
n-C4
0.136
0.02
n-C5
0.125
0.02
n-C6
0.131
0.025
n-C7
0.12
0.025
n-C8
0.12
0.035
n-C10
30
0.12
0.045
n-C14
0.12
0.045
mol (%)
MW
Tc (K)
Pc (bar)
N2
0.19
28.01
126.2
33.5
0.04
1.01
44.01
304.2
72.8
0.225
0.02
86.49
16.04
190.6
45.4
0.008
0.12
0.093
C2
2.48
30.07
305.4
48.2
0.098
0.12
0.128
C3
1.28
44.1
369.8
41.9
0.152
0.12
0.123
iC4
0.72
58.12
408.1
36.0
0.176
0.12
0.136
0.02
nC4
0.37
58.12
425.2
37.5
0.193
0.12
0.125
0.02
iC5
0.22
72.15
460.4
33.4
0.227
0.12
0.131
0.025
0.14
0.9978
72.15
469.6
33.3
0.251
0.12
0.12
0.025
547.4
30.3
0.410
0.12
0.12
0.035
C10 -C14
1.259
161.99
643.8
22.9
0.670
0.12
0.12
0.038
C15 -C19
1.2321
233.97
724.2
17.0
0.930
0.12
0.12
0.038
C20 -C24
0.9024
302.66
777.4
13.4
1.160
0.12
0.12
0.038
C25+
2.7087
437.75
849.6
9.9
1.604
0.12
0.12
0.038
B
c
C
D
D
g
H
K
m
M
p
q
R
S
T
U
x
y
z
Z
140
Mixture II
Mixture III
Mixture IV
10.7487
0.220662
10.9783
0.05008
13.562
0.4177
p, bar
120
160
Nomenclature
CP
100
Measured Data
Conventional Method
Reduction Method
m =2
m =1
=0
=0, Tc adjusted
80
60
0.0280032
103.56
9.95735
0.0706504
C1Ci
C1
nC5
1
2
CO2 Ci
CO2
C6 -C9
No.
N2Ci
0.0642569
0.02837
0.07158
0.0327679
0.04311
0.000864411
0.01329
0.005196
40
20
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
T, K
20
m=2
m=1
= 0
300
322
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
339
370
400
430
460
490
520
540
550
565
11
11
11
11
575
12
12
11
11
580
10
10
583*
583**
16
Number of Iterations
T (K)
583.6**
580
575
Tc = 571.82 K
p c = 79.47 bar
0
0
Tc = 571.43 K
p c = 78.23 bar
Acknowledgments
We thank Dr. Bret Beckner of Mobil Technology Corp. (now with
ExxonMobil Upstream Research Co.) for providing the opportunity to work on this project. We also appreciate many interesting
discussions and suggestions from Dr. Kenneth M. Brantferger of
Mobil Technology Corp. (now with ExxonMobil Upstream Research Co.). Dr. K. Ghorayeb of RERI performed the plotting of
p, bar
120
Conventional Method
100
90
80
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
200
250
300
350
400
m =4
m =3
m =2
m =1
= 0
= 0, Tc adjusted
110
150
Superscripts
L liquid phase index
V vapor phase index
130
100
Subscripts
i,j,k,l component index, also derivative index
Reduction
Method
50
p, bar
* retrograde dewpoint
** dewpoint
140
References
583.6*
150
Reduction Method
m=2
m=1
12
CO2% (mole)
m=3
m=2
m=1
5
20
40
5
6
5
6
5
5
50
60
70
75
10
80
12
15
15
85
13
16
16
90
17
17
15
93.3
95
97.5
1,400
800
Conventional Method
Reduction Method
m =4
m =3
m =2
m =1
= 0
1,300
1,200
700
p, bar
1,100
600
1,000
900
800
700
500
600
500
300
350
400
400
450
T, K
500
550
600
300
Conventional Method
Reduction Method
m =2
m =1
200
100
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
p , bar
Fig. 9Saturation pressure based on equilibrium vs. pressure
of two-phase liquid composition for Mixture III at 366.48 K.
Mixture IV (T = 399.82 K)
Reduction Conventional
SSI Newton
Reduction Conventional
p (bar)
Newton
p (bar)
Newton
SSI Newton
3,000
3,000
2,000
11
2,000
1,500
14
1,500
27
1,000
26
1,400
32
800
59
1,300
40
750
10
108
1,200
55
740
10
132
1,100
11
116
730
11
168
1,080
11
168
720
13
150
1,060
16
411
710
11
96
1,052
12
112
705
10
81
1,050
11
104
700
10
71
1,045
11
83
695
10
63
1,040
10
74
690
10
57
1,020
11
49
685
52
100
38
680
48
900
20
670
42
800
14
660
37
700
10
640
30
600
600
23
500
500
14
400
400
10
300
200
200
87
14. Metcalfe, R.S. and Yarborough, L.: The Effect of Phase Equilibria on
the CO2 Displacement Mechanism, SPEJ (August 1979) 242, Trans.,
AIME, 267.
15. Roland, C.H.: Vapor-Liquid Equilibria for Natural Gas-Crude Oil
Mixtures, Ind. Eng. Chem. (1945) 37, 930.
16. Kilgren, K.H.: Phase Behavior of a High-Pressure Condensate Reservoir Fluid, JPT (August 1966) 1001, Trans., AIME, 237.
17. Cavett, R.H.: Physical Data for Distillation Calculation, Vapor-Liquid
Equilibria, 1964 Midyear Meeting, API Division of Refining, San
Francisco, 15 May.
18. Katz, D.L. and Firoozabadi, A: Predicting Phase Behavior of Condensate/Crude-Oil Systems Using Methane Interaction Coefficients,
JPT (November 1978) 1649, Trans., AIME, 265.
19. Abhvani, A.S. and Beaumont, D.N.: Development of an Efficient
Algorithm for the Calculation of Two-Phase Flash Equilibria, SPERE
(November 1987) 695, Trans., AIME, 283.
y ln z. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (B-5)
bV
bL
ZL 1 lnZL BL
AL
22B
bp
A
22B
The term
12 12
j i aj 1
ij
j=1
bi
Z + 2.414B
.
ln
b
Z 0.414B
j=1
k Qk qki
k=1
Q q
k
k ki
. . . . . . (A-5)
y ln
i
iVy
ln
Kc =
. . . . . (B-6)
ZL 0.414BL
iLz.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (B-1)
yi ln iVy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (B-2)
i=1
Substitution of Eq. A-4 into Eq. B-2 provides the expression for
gV which reads
V
g = Z 1 lnZ B
q c
j = 1, . . . , c 1. . . . (C-1)
q j q c . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (C-2)
c1
j=1
AV
ZV + 2.414BV
.
ln V
V
22BV Z 0.414B
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (B-3)
zc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (C-3)
ln Kc = ln
q l
zl exp
=1
l=1
q
c.
. . . . . (C-4)
=1
ln Kj = ln
q l
zl exp
l=1
=1
q
=1
j = 1, . . . , c 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (C-5)
Eq. 27 of the text is from Eqs. C-4 and C-5.
Appendix D: Hessian Matrix H=HI+HII
The matrix HI is given by
Let us further subdivide the two terms in Eq. B-1. The first term
in Eq. B-1 is denoted by gV and is expressed by
i=1
88
ZL + 2.414BL
k=1
by combining Eqs. 7, 9, and 11. Eqs. A-4 and A-5 establish Eq. 17
of the text.
ln
Kc can be expressed by
xa
xj ai1 2aj1 21
=1
j=1
=1
yj = zj Kc exp
bi
Z 1 lnZ B
b
gV =
V
k
L
k
k=1
q
ln Kj ln Kc =
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-4)
D =
Q Q
DII (the second term of the TPD in Eq. 20) is only a function
of y. Because Ki=Ki(QV1 , . . . , QVm,bV) (from Ki=Li /Vi ), one
readily finds
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-3)
RT
and
L
i
i=1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-2)
RT2
gL =
ap
ln i =
where
B=
Z 3 1 BZ 2 + A 3B2 2BZ AB B2 B3 = 0,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-1)
A=
HI =
2 D I
2 D I
QV1 2
QV1 QV2
2 D I
2 D I
QVM
QV1
QVM
QV2
2 D I
QV1 QVM
2 D I
QVM2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (D-1)
The entries in the above matrix are given by 2gV/Q VQ
V
( ,
=1, . . . , M) (see Eqs. B-3 and B-4). Note that 2 gL /
QVQ
V0. The PR-EOS can be used to calculate these entries.
March 2002 SPE Journal
HII =
D
II
QV1 2
D
QV1
QV2
2 D II
2 D II
QVM
QV1
QVM
c1
2
II
QV2
D
QV1
II
QVM
2 D II
QVM2
l=1
= 1, . . . , M; j = 1, . . . , c 1.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (D-3)
2 D II lnKj Kc jk 1
=
= +
j,k = 1, . . . , c 1.
yjyk
yk
yk yc
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (D-4)
Next, we define the matrix U with elements Ujk. One can show
that the elements of U1 are given by
Ujk1 = yjjk yk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (D-5)
c1
Cjl
C y
jp p
p=1
j,k = 1, . . . , M. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (D-7)
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (D-2)
C j =
ylCkl
D
Q V
= +
g V
g L
Q
QV
= 1, . . . , M. . . . . . . . . . . (D-8)
89